Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
C
L (mm) 8000
Ig (mm4) 5.40E+09
Ig (mm4) Composite 5.62E+09 5.49E+09
Ig-comp / Ig 104% 102%
A (mm2) 180000
ρ% 0.40% 0.16%
As (mm2) 672 262.5
∅ rebar 16 17
n ∅ 16 3.3 1.3
e (mm) 260
Prestressing
Pi (KN) 357
E.Ig 1.8E+14
K1: Before Mcr
K1 = [(E.Ig)/L].Km(rot) 9.1E+10
R.C
Mo 0 ∅o (rad) 0
Mcr (KN.m) 90.0 ∅cr (rad) 9.92E-04
My (KN.m) 158.3 ∅y (rad) 5.30E-03
Mult (Kn.m) 165.8 ∅ult(rad) virtual 5.70E-03
∅ult (rad) actual 1.47E-02
R.C
Po 0 Δo 0.0
Pcr (KN) 45 Δcr (cm) 2.4
Py (KN) 79.1 Δy (cm) 12.7
Pult (KN) 82.9 Δult (cm) 13.7
30300 610x305x238
Materials
fy (Mpa) 450
fyp (Mpa) 1700
fc' (Mpa) 50
Es (Mpa)=Ep (Mpa) 2.00E+05
Ec (Mpa) 33587.6
fpi all (Mpa) = 80% fpy 1360
n=Es/Ec 5.95
الحالة دي واقعيا مش
عند عزم,موجودة
التشريخ بيكون لسة Mcr NA depth. Calcs using 1st M. of Area's balance
تقريبا كامل وبيبتي R.C P.S.C
وحدة وحدة ينتقل من a1 150 a1
الكامل للتشريخ b1 4.00E+03 b1
عند عزم.الكامل c1 -2.24E+06 c1
الخضوع بيكون وصل z 109.6 z
.للمرحلة دي
My. NA depth Calcs using elastic cracked sec. anal.
فبستخدم قيمة
R.C P.S.C
الستفنس بتاع 1
a1 a1
المرحلة دي ك b1 2.67E+01 b1
idealised controlling c1 -1.49E+04 c1
K للي قبلها. z 109.6 z
Icr >Ig
This virtual R
hardening is not Stifness Comparison 1
accepted.
K1 9.07E+10
This I will use K2 1.58E+10
the Ig instead.. K3 1.58E+10
K4 1.89E+10
Comes out with no Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in
virtual hardening. be comparable to the RC diagra
But still don't know
we should trust this In other words the external loa
value ?! Or induce a
drop on our own. THis makes the PSC beam stron
Comes out with no Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in
virtual hardening. be comparable to the RC diagra
But still don't know
we should trust this In other words the external loa
value ?! Or induce a
drop on our own. THis makes the PSC beam stron
P.S.C
∅o (deg.) 0 Mo 0
∅cr (deg.) 0.06 Mcr (KN.m) 218.6
∅y (deg.) 0.30 My (KN.m) 259.6
∅ult(rad) virtual 0.33 Mult (Kn.m) 683.5
∅ult (deg.) actual 0.84
P.S.C
Po 0
Pcr (KN) 109.3
Py (KN) 129.8
Pult (KN) 341.8
Getting the same NA depth from 1st m.o.a. and from elastic section
analysis, and from elastic sec. analysis
R.C
Stifness Comparison 2 Stifness Comparison 3
K1/K1 1 K1/K1
K2/K1 17% K2/K1
K3/K1 17% K3/K2
K4/K1 21% K4/K3
Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in the -ve part of the plot. It is added to all values to shift the diagram so it may
be comparable to the RC diagram.
In other words the external load has to counteract the PS moment first !!! Whereas in the RC beam it doesn't.
THis makes the PSC beam stronger by the MPsc as a reserve strenghth. There lies the core idea of PS.
Instead of plotting Mps =p.e in the -ve part of the plot. It is added to all values to shift the diagram so it may
be comparable to the RC diagram.
In other words the external load has to counteract the PS moment first !!! Whereas in the RC beam it doesn't.
THis makes the PSC beam stronger by the MPsc as a reserve strenghth. There lies the core idea of PS.
P.S.C
∅o (rad) 0 ∅o (deg.) 0
∅cr (rad) 2.41E-03 ∅cr (deg.) 0.14
∅y (rad) 3.16E-03 ∅y (deg.) 0.18
∅ult(rad) numerical 0.02554258 ∅ult(deg) numerical 1.46
∅ult (rad) sudden softening 1.59E-01 ∅ult (deg.) sudden softening 9.11
P.S.C
Δo 0.0
Δcr (cm) 5.8
Δy (cm) 7.6
Δult (cm) 61.3
epth. Calcs using elastic cracked sec. anal. It gives the same NA results, because the N.A is the C.G for the com
P.S.C
a1
b1
c1
z
Although the strains are correct, proved by giving the same res
Turns Out to be an invalid solution, based on a key invalid assum
cr using elastic cracked sec. analysis conc. tensile force); i.e. using Icr.
P.S.C
Infact , at Mcr I=Ig, and only after a considerable moment incre
Mcr 9.62
am it doesn't.
PS.
m so it may
am it doesn't.
"c" NA depth at Mu for PSC
PS.
a1
b1
c1
a (mm)
Steel c(mm)
My 2580 ∅y �ps
Mult ∅ult �ps - ��e
Mu (KN.m)
0 KN.
t the experiment
Is it LOGICAL & correct , the N.A b
se the N.A is the C.G for the composite fully cracked section!!!! But Why ??!!
0.68%
Mu of P.S. ��e 0.68% My of P.S.
0.001%
Section �ce 0.001% Section,; using �padd
0.003 �add. 0.17% as fixed strain
Mu of P.S. My of P.S.
Section Section,; using �padd
as fixed strain
OGICAL & correct , the N.A being at about d !! In the My stage ??!!!
mistake is there !! And how did this deep NA manage to produce enough strain that can extend
nly being 10 mm away from it !!?
s wise doesn;t work ??!! Something has to be wrong !!
lso produces 3.18 greater Inertia,than the gross composit onw, which results in considerable har
My of P.S. My of P.S.
ection,; using �padd Section; using �py
s fixed strain �py 0.85% as a fixed strain
My of P.S. My of P.S.
ection,; using �padd Section; using �py
s fixed strain as a fixed strain
Fully
Cracked:
Elastic Deflection & Stifness
fness
𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �:
d Section
�=( 〖 (� 〗 _��.�).�_(�� ))/(0.85��^′.�)
�^2=Ψ_2∗�/(1.3 )−Ψ_2.�
a�^2+Ψ_2.� −Ψ_2∗�/(1.3 )=0.0
>,< ?
a= "✓" Ψ
�_��="✓" > , <2�_(𝑦 )=0.85 %?
𝑀�="✓"
Yield Moment & Cracked
𝑓�=(𝑓𝑦/𝐸�∗𝐸
�)/(𝑑−𝑧)*z
𝑓�=(𝑓𝑦/𝐸�∗𝐸
�)/(𝑑−𝑧)*z
𝑓�=(𝐴�. 𝑓𝑦)/
(0.5.𝑏.𝑧) Thus
𝑧/(𝑛(𝑑−𝑧))=𝐴�/(0.5.𝑏.𝑧)
e*
𝑧/((𝑛𝑑−𝑛𝑧))=(𝑒∗)/𝑧
𝑧/((𝑒∗𝑛𝑑−𝑒∗𝑛𝑧))=1/𝑧
a1
𝑧^2=(𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑑−𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑧)
𝒈 �:
0.003.(𝑑−1.3.�)/(1.3.�).�.�_(�� ))/
+ (�_��.�.�_(�� ))/(0.85.��^′.�) +
�)/(1.3 �))/(0.85.��^′.�)
/(1.3 �)−1)
t & Cracked Stifness (Inertia at Yield Moment St
�1=1
𝑏1= (𝐴�.𝑛)/
a1 b1 c1 (0.5.𝑏)
c1=−
(𝐴�.𝑛.𝑑)/(0.5.𝑏)
𝑧^2+(𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑧")"−(𝑒∗.𝑛.𝑑)=0.0
Moment State)
Same applies here, we've lost controlling information: fy
Thus , the resulting NA is a general enquiry !
Or more acurately, the math of the problem indicates that values of strain are
naturally dismissed.
So weather your controlling strain is the ectr, or ey. When u plug in in either force
equilibrium or moment equilibrium; these controlling strain values, end up self
Same applies here, we've lost controlling information: fy
So weather your controlling strain is the ectr, or ey. When u plug in in either force
equilibrium or moment equilibrium; these controlling strain values, end up self
canceling on the RHS & LHS of the final eqn.
What matters: (fc, As,d., comp.conc stress shape), these are the ones that control Z.
All above also indicates that Z is a fixed value along the elastic-cracked stage, for any
section that has I=Icr, controlled by the triangle stress.
When the triangle stress changes into a nonline-eqv. square, the NA shifts up, and that
is the ULS state.
An acurate (cumbersome) solution would be having to find out how much of conc. in
tension produces tensile force, and lifts down the NA. But probably won't give a very
1 diferent Z.
(𝐴�.𝑛)/
)
𝑀𝑦=(𝐴�.𝑓𝑦)(𝑑−𝑧/3)
−
𝑑)/(0.5.𝑏)
Mult. R.C Sec.
rain are
either force
nd up self
rain are
𝑀�𝑟=(𝐴
either force
nd up self
𝑀�𝑟=(0
that control Z.
much of conc. in
on't give a very
�_��𝑟
(𝑑−𝑧/3)
�_��𝑟
Mcr. R.C Sec. after the instant of cracking. u
𝑀�𝑟=(𝐴�.𝑓�)(𝑑−𝑧/3) ….. 1
𝑀�𝑟=(0.5.𝑓�.𝑏.𝑧)(𝑑−𝑧/3) ….. 2
�_��𝑟/((�−𝑧))=�_�/𝑧
….. 4
�_��𝑟/((�−𝑧))=�_�/((𝑑−𝑧))
….. 5
Solution
Solution
Algorithim:
f cracking. using elastic
Algorithim: cracked sectional analysi
4 →3
5→3 𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �
𝑔𝑒� 𝑧= " ✓"
𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�
Z →4 𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�
5→3 𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �
𝑔𝑒� 𝑧= " ✓"
𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�
Z →4 𝑓�= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�
𝑔𝑒� 𝑓�=" ✓" 0.5.𝑏.�_��𝑟.𝐸�∗𝑍^2/(�−𝑧)=𝐴_�.�
((�−𝑧))
(0.5.𝑏)/(𝑛.𝐴�)= (𝑑−𝑧)/𝑧^2
∴ 𝑀�𝑟="✓"
𝑧^2=(𝑑−𝑧)((𝑛.𝐴�)/(0.5.𝑏))
𝑜𝑟
𝑍→5 =Ψ𝑑−Ψ𝑧
𝑔𝑒� 𝑓�="✓"
𝑧^2+Ψ𝑧−Ψ𝑑=0.0
∴ 𝑀�𝑟="✓"
𝑧= "✓"
onal analysis.
𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �:
(� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�−𝑧)−�)/((�−𝑧))
Wron
= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗𝑧/((�−𝑧))
𝑮𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 �:
(� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗((�−𝑧)−�)/((�−𝑧))
Wron
= 〖 (� 〗 _��𝑟.𝐸�)∗𝑧/((�−𝑧)) Should be noted that , this formula is
𝑍^2/(�−𝑧)=𝐴_�.�_��𝑟.𝐸�∗((�−𝑧)−�)/ N.A depth formula, by coincidence, t
gives identical results to the 1st Mom
= (𝑑−𝑧)/𝑧^2 cracked section.
The sectret is in :
.𝐴�)/(0.5.𝑏)) You've the desired controlling param
strain compatibility for a section that
1- Fully Cracked
Ψ
=0.0 2- Has a triangular stress dist. above
Wrong
Wrong
ted that , this formula is identical to the My
rmula, by coincidence, thus gives the same N.A depth to My. Also, it
al results to the 1st Moment of area approach for deducing the fully
on.
s in :
ked
my calcs !
M- φ Chart for R.C Beam
180
160
140
120
Unexpected Hardening.
Because Icr at Mu, is greater th
M (Kn.m)
100
Caused by the increase in Lever
80 (shallowing of N.A).
20
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0
φ @ support (degree)
Ro tati o n a l S ti fn e s s (N /m m )
Stifness Comparison
1.00E+11
Load Increase Load Increase Load Increase resisted by
8.00E+10 resisted by resisted by N.A
N.A both N.A upmoves &
upwards N.A lockdepth Locks
& Strain Strain Increase.
shift. between My & Mcr. &
Increase.
6.00E+10 the increase in strain
yields the rebar. N.A de pth s hi fts up
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
4.00E+10 vi rtua l I cr (i ncre a s e ) ! & thus
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.
2.00E+10
0.00E+00
9.07E+10 1.58E+10 1.58E+10 1.89E+10
0.00E+00
9.07E+10 1.58E+10 1.58E+10 1.89E+10
400
300
200
100
500
M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
φ @ support (degree)
Ro tati o n a l S ti fn e s s (N /m m )
Stifness Comparison
1.00E+11
Load Increase Load Increase Load Increase resisted by
8.00E+10 resisted by resisted by N.A
N.A both N.A upmoves &
upwards N.A lockdepth Locks
& Strain Strain Increase.
shift. between My & Mcr. &
Increase.
6.00E+10 the increase in strain
yields the rebar. N.A depth s hi fts up
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
4.00E+10 vi rtua l I cr (i ncre a s e ) ! & thus
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.
2.00E+10
0.00E+00
9.07E+10 1.58E+10 1.58E+10 1.89E+10
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60
200
P (K
150
100
50
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60
Δ @ midspan (cm)
Notes:
1- My/Mu is very low, compared to experimental results.
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
Δ @ midspan (cm)
100
50
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0
)Δ @ midspan (cm
PSC / RC
ملحظات:
ملحظات:
Stifness Comparison 2
Plastic 1.2 1.4
1 1.2
n
0.8 1
0.8
d Increase resisted by 0.6
th N.A upmoves &
Strain Increase. 0.6
0.4
N.A de pth s hi fts up
0.4
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
vi rtua l I cr (i ncre a s e ) ! & thus 0.2 0.2
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.
0 0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K1 K4/K1 K1
0 1.89E+10
0 1.89E+10
P.S.C
am M- φ Chart for PSC Beam (with induced post
800
700
600
500
M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
500
M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
φ @ support (degree)
Stifness Comparison 2
Plastic 1.2 1.4
1 1.2
n
0.8 1
0.8
d Increase resisted by 0.6
th N.A upmoves &
Strain Increase. 0.6
0.4
N.A de pth s hi fts up
0.4
s i gni fica ntl y, re s ul ting i n a
i rtua l I cr (i ncrea s e ) ! & thus 0.2 0.2
vi rtua l ha rde ne i ng.
0 0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K1 K4/K1 K1
0 1.89E+10
200
150
100
50
0
50.0 60.0 70.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
200
P (K
150
100
50
0
50.0 60.0 70.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Δ @ midspan (cm)
mental results.
ight !
Aps/As 39%
الخلصة
يا زميلي
خلي بالك ال
على كل موم
مومنت البريس
ملحظا
ملحظا
M (Kn.m)
100
of the section at the 80
ultimate state, made the 60
corresponding rotation
40
2.6 times more.
20
0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
upport (degree) φ @ suppor
Comparing actual and
Stifness Comparison 3
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K2 K4/K3
(with actual ultimate Stifness) P- Δ Chart fo
90
80
70
Some hardening exists, 60
however, the softnes of 50
P (KN)
the section at the 40
ultimate state, made 30
the corresponding
20
rotation 2.5 times more.
10
0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 2
midspan (cm) Δ @ mids
Comparing actual and
S.C
with induced post yield softening) M- φ Chart fo
800
700
600
500
M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
500
M (Kn.m)
400
300
200
100
0
5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5
pport (degree) φ @ support
Comparing actual and
Stifness Comparison 3
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
K1/K1 K2/K1 K3/K2 K4/K3
200
150
100
50
0
00 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200
200
P (K
150
100
50
0
00 250 300 350 400 450 0 50 100 150 200
midspan (cm) Δ @ midsp
Comparing actual and
الظاهر إن طريقة
Very smart !
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 the hardening is a result of the
tension of the steel (dissipater
φ @ support (degree) open-gap close).
aring actual and virtul ult. stifness effect
P- Δ Chart for R.C Beam
.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 the hardening is a result of the
tension of the steel (dissipater
Δ @ midspan (cm) open-gap close).
aring actual and virtul ult. stifness effect
Δ @ midspan (cm)
ring actual and virtul ult. stifness effect
noted that this visible hardening in both cases is the result of the fact that Mult > My;
the significant N.A upwards lift (Couple lever arm significant increase).
g to do with inherent steel hardening (fult = (15% ~ 20%), as we in the ult. state
umptions-use fyield and not fu. :D
ed also, that for gap opening -gap cclosing frames; it is the other way around:
g is a result of the steel's hardening, as the rotation is controlled by the uniaxial
e steel (dissipater), where the N.A is nearly fixed ,for both +ve & -ve rotations (gap
se).
noted that this visible hardening in both cases is the result of the fact that Mult > My;
the significant N.A upwards lift (Couple lever arm significant increase).
g to do with inherent steel hardening (fult = (15% ~ 20%), as we in the ult. state
umptions-use fyield and not fu. :D
ed also, that for gap opening -gap cclosing frames; it is the other way around:
:
xial
s (gap
t > My;
xial
s (gap
Idealised Steel M
800
600
400
200
fy*1.15 strain stress
0
-0.1 -593.4 -0.1 -516 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05
-0.002 -517.5 -2.00E-03 -450 -200
0 0 0 0
-400
0.002 517.5 2.00E-03 450
0.1 593.4 0.1 516 -600
-800
fc' *1.5
strain stress strain stress fc'=50 (Crude Para
-3.00E-03 -75 -3.00E-03 -50
-2.88E-03 -75 -2.88E-03 -50
-2.52E-03 -73.08 -2.52E-03 -48.72
-1.92E-03 -65.28 -1.92E-03 -43.52 -3.50E-03 -3.00E-03 -2.50E-03 -2.00E-03 -1.50E-03
-1.08E-03 -44.28 -1.08E-03 -29.52
-3.00E-04 -14.25 -3.00E-04 -9.5
0 0 0 0
1.31E-04 7.5 1.31E-04 5
Idealised Steel Model fo Sap2000
800
600
400
200
0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
-200
-400
-600
-800
0.1486 2.1101 20
0.1717 1.4701 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.1965 0.8874
0.2229 0.7472
0.251 0.6814
0.2807 0.4648
Fi*4 vs. 1st derivative of the slope e
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Thus for our case:
(1/r) = (4/L)*Fi
∅o (rad) 0 Mo 0
∅cr (rad) 9.92E-04 Mcr (KN.m) 90.0
∅y (rad) 5.30E-03 My (KN.m) 158.3
∅ult(rad) actual 1.47E-02 Mult (Kn.m) 165.8
(1/r)o 0 Mo 0
(1/r)cr 3.97E-03 Mcr (KN.m) 90
(1/r)y 2.12E-02 My (KN.m) 158.2951
(1/r)u 5.89E-02 Mult (Kn.m) 165.7579
∅−𝑀/𝐸�
ure accurately !!